The organisations or institutions most able to fund and promote creative solutions have the resources but it is unusual for them to embrace novel ideas. Perhaps because they are accountable to stakeholders, risk averse and have rigid governance structures enforced by people with no stake in the outcome, rewarded instead for enforcing process. Decisions taken by such organisations are vulnerable to influence. Here are ten ways competitors stem funding for novel ideas:
1. Nominate: Get nominated as a grant reviewer on a funding committee on the basis of ‘expertise’ in their field.
2. Spook: Express concern that the applicants don’t seem to be aware of other funded projects on the same topic. Committees are easily spooked by the idea that applicants might be generating ideas that compete with something that has already been funded. The details don’t matter as long as whatever the committee ‘expert’ cites sounds like it might be relevant.
3. Foster doubt: Express concern that in their ‘expert’ opinion the project won’t succeed especially if the applicant could be accused of being unfamiliar with the context in which they intend to operate. Committees will be relying on their member’s special ‘expertise’ and are unlikely to disagree.
4. Cast aspersions: Note that the applicants don’t have the relevant expertise. It needs some imagination but always possible. No one is accomplished in every facet.
5. Magnify: Make much of reports that the pilot studies were inconclusive and by corollary risky. Novel ideas usually are. If the pilot studies showed promising results they make the remark that further research of this untested, risky idea is therefore probably unnecessary.
6. Argue: Present arguments why the budget requested is too high- in the current economic climate there is always room for economy. If the grant is approved having the budget slashed should slow competitors down.
7. Impugn: Comment that the chief investigator doesn’t have a strong enough track record to deliver on this project. Innovators doing something new are unlikely to have done anything exactly like this before. It spooks committees who might worry about any possibility that the money will be wasted. Sexism and racism, when it is subtle makes this easier.
8. Choose: Find another project on the list, led by someone who isn’t a threat, that is ‘so much better’ and of course less risky and would make a ‘big’ difference in practice. Committees would be happy to hear that the subject expert thinks they’d be funding something that would be so much more likely to meet a need.
9. Gossip: Express concern that even though they don’t ‘know’ the applicants personally, they’ve heard rumours that the applicants don’t produce good work. The doubts should generate enough anxiety to make some reviewers rethink their enthusiasm for a project.
10. Ambush: If such attempts at heading off the applicants at the pass fails and the committee funds the project- there’s always a chance for a competitor to stop them publishing their results later on. There’s lots of scope to recommend rejection of any paper- inadequate literature reviews, debated methodology, concerns about sample size, participant attrition, conflicting ideas about analysis of the data, failure to acknowledge the limitations of the methods. If all else fails someone can always find typographical and formatting errors that cast doubt on the whole manuscript- after all there is ‘lots of competition for space’ and the best journals receive ‘so many more papers than they can publish’.
On the other side of the fence if you are a determined innovator there is an opportunity buried here. On whom does your future depend if not on yourself? How do you innovate in a world that is viewed by some as being so small that if you have even a little then they don’t have enough? How are you being so resourceful that this doesn’t matter? A lean medicine approach is not about big projects nor reliant on big grants. Lean medicine is fuelled by the imagination and resourcefulness of champions.